300 2.8 is or 300 f/4 is? Shooting apertures above f/4

[chris_alcock]

I was going to buy a 300 2.8 is canon lens, and then realized most of the

photography I was going to be doing would require f stops above f/4 (f/8, f

5.6, f/11). My question is, what are the benifits of a 2.8 lens (besides the

obvious speed) over a 300 f/4 lens. Is it worth the money if I won't be using

the 2.8? Is it better glass than the f/4? Thanks for everyone's time.

[bobatkins]

Slightly better with TCs plus the 2.8 will AF with the 2x on all EOS bodies.

 

It's marginally sharper at wide apertures.

[jwhite3.0]

Sounds like you already know the answer to your question and it entails saving $3000.

 

 

Advantages of f/2.8: better ability to isolate subject, freeze action rather than bump ISO and/or shutter speed, faster f-stops with TCs and AF w/ 2X TC, a hair sharper than f/4 version, some say more contrasty than f/4 @ equivalent f-stops (subjective?), slightly better wide-open in terms of flare, vignetting, distortions wide-open than f/4 version wide-open, sports/action photography (down the road if you decide to do so).

 

Advantages of f/4: lighter, cheaper, similar sharpness, less conspicuous, if you decide to sell more people can afford this lens than f/2.8, cheaper to replace if stolen or dropped (not really a concern for most but if you happen to be traveling) and you will be happy with more money in the bank account.

 

 

With all said, if money was no object than I would go for the f/2.8 for those unpredictable times for use in lowlight situations even though 99.9% of the time I'd be shooting in good light. For me weight of a lens is not a factor in deciding a purchase. However, on a budget and shooting at f/4 and beyond I'd go for f/4 version. Bob Atkins has a review on these two versions and it seems that in your case he would probably recommend the f/4 IS model.

[jwhite3.0]

He already beat me to it

[geoffs1]

One item nobody mentioned: the AF on many Canon bodies is faster with lenses f/2.8 and wider.

 

Also, the viewfinder image is brighter.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[bobatkins]

I had the f2.8 and traded it for the f4. For me the size and weight "outweighed" the other advantages. I can carry the f4 lens when hiking "just in case" I need it. With the f2.8 I needed to know I'd need it before I'd carry it.

 

The $3000 difference will buy you a lot of other lenses!

 

A 500/4 makes more sense than a 300/2.8 since there isn't a smaller, lighter, cheaper alternative with similar optical quality. TCs on a shorter lens don't count. A 400/5.6L with a 1.4x may be 560mm, cheaper and lighter but at f8 it's just too slow a lot of the time.

 

At 300mm, f4 is still pretty fast.

 

Here's what I said about these lenses a long tiome ago on my web site: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-600.html and http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html

[John Crowe]

I think you have your answer. Now, may I ask why you want to shoot a telephoto lens at f8 to f16? I only ask because in 20 years of a wide variety of photography I have not run into this situation more than a half dozen times.

 

 

Don't forget that while your depth of field increases with each stop, past about f8 (or even lower with an f2.8 lens) resolution actually decreases.

[bob_alfieri]

another advantage of the f/4 is the minimum focusing distance of 4.9 ft. (vs. 8.2 ft. with the f/2.8). allows for some killer close-ups.

 

to those who have owned both, can you tell me if the f/2.8 focuses more reliably? i have the f/4 IS on a 5D (never tried the f/2.8) and i find focus tracking even with AI Servo and center-point a little hit-or-miss. btw, yes, i do let the IS spool up for a second.

 

thanks.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I second the question about why you're shooting at relatively small apertures; that's not a typical use for a telephoto lens. When I had the 300/4L IS USM, I wouldn't be surprised if I never shot at f/8 (other than with a 1.4x TC, in which case I found that stopping down a stop vastly improved sharpness and contrast) or smaller, and the majority of my shots were taken wide open.</p>

[sergey_oboguev]

I have 300/4. However when I took a trip to Homer, Alaska to photograph eagles, I purchased 300/2.8 specifically for this trip (resold it later) as I knew I would have to shoot often under dim light the targets that require fast AF and AF tracking.

 

300/2.8 is the fastest focusing lens I ever saw; it feels. (To be fair, it's "far focusing range" starts farther away than for 300 f/4.)

 

Besides, 2.8 enables cross sensors in the bodies, check your body manual for AF sensor set enabled when using f/2.8 vs f/4 lenses.

 

However try to hand-held it for a while and your hands and back will ache in pain.

[sergey_oboguev]

Oh, and do not overlook the difference for transportation when you fly.

 

BTW, if you go for f/2.8, the best way to transport it via air and in the field is certainly not the Canon's container, but KinesisGear pouch. (When checkin in, you'd obviously need to use bubble wrap inside the pouch.) Same goes for 300 f/4 anyway.

 

I still have the 2.8 pouch left, so if you or anybody else is interested to purchase it at a discount, feel free to email me.

[photographicsafaris]

I am also really into this argument. At 300mm the depth of field is so short that for frame

filling large mammals you do need f8 to get sufficient coverage so why have the 300 2.8.

 

Only castration prevents me from looking too seriously at the ?3000 canon job.

 

However I do fully understand the approach of 300mm withfull frame. I have had (oops

and broke) the 300 f4is and it is incredible, I have a sigma 300 f4 and the quality is

fabulous, but focus slower, I used the Canon 300f4 is and it is signifigantly better.

 

The idea of a 300mm f2.8 lens makes so much sense with the dedicated teleconverters

that I brought a used 300 f2.8 sigma and Have some great results it is certainly the way

forward, for adaptability. This lens and converters for wildlife is simply magical.

 

Leave the 1.4 extender on the 5D and you have dust proof 420mm f4, if necessary add on

a 2 extender for more legs, or if necessary shoot at 300mm.

 

You expressed concern regarding the autofocus I noticed that the the 5D does not have

suitable autofocus for the 2.8 lens, particularly so with the expanded focusing method.

You are better with a 1D series body. My Eos 1NRS and Eos3 work much better with the

300 f2.8 than the 5D - whereas the 5D with the f4 and expanded focus works incredibly

well.

I would like to qualify that I dont own a canon 300 2.8 lens but have used it extensively. I

do own a 300 f2.8 and f4 sigma lens, of which the f4 is better.

 

So in conclusion I would like to get a 300 f2.8Lis and 2x extender to go with my 1.4

extender as my primary setup for wildlife in East Africa.

 

Cheers G